Husband's Girlfriend Does Not Fall Within Definition Of 'Relative' U/S 498A IPC; Cannot Be Prosecuted For Cruelty: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a woman having an extra-marital relationship with the husband does not qualify as a “relative” under Section 498-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (corresponding to Section 498-A IPC), and therefore cannot be prosecuted for cruelty or harassment under that provision.
The Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman who was alleged to be the husband's paramour, along with other family members, in a case where the complainant-wife had made vague and omnibus allegations of dowry demand and mental harassment.
The Court was hearing two connected petitions filed under Section 561-A of the J&K CrPC (akin to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR registered at Women Police Station, Udhampur, for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 RPC, along with the chargesheet and the order framing charges. The petitioners included the husband, his parents, brother, sister-in-law, sister, and a woman (Arti Devi) alleged to be the husband's paramour.
The bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem quoted the Supreme Court in U. Suvetha Vs State by Inspector of Police and observed,
“By no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred.”
The complainant, a policewoman, married petitioner No.5 (an Army personnel) in 2016. Within seven months, she lodged a complaint alleging cruelty, mental and physical harassment, dowry demand by her in-laws, and that her husband had developed illicit relations with Arti Devi. The police registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet. The trial court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 506 RPC.
The petitioners contended that the husband had already filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage and a criminal complaint under Sections 420/506 RPC against the wife in 2016, both prior to the wife's FIR. They argued that the present proceedings were a counter-blast.
Court's Observation:
On the status of Arti Devi, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1451, followed in a subsequent 2024 judgment, holding that a girlfriend or concubine does not fall within the definition of “relative” under Section 498-A IPC.
The Court noted that she was neither a relative of the husband by blood, marriage, or adoption, nor was she residing in the matrimonial home. Accordingly, she could not be prosecuted under Section 498-A RPC.
Regarding the other family members, the Court found that the allegations in the complaint were “wholesale and omnibus in nature,” lacking specific details of time, date, place, or manner of occurrence. Citing the Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Court observed that there is a growing tendency to misuse Section 498-A IPC as a tool for personal vendetta, and that vague and generalized allegations cannot sustain criminal proceedings.
The Court further noted that the husband's proceedings for annulment and his complaint against the wife were prior in time, and the present FIR appeared to be a counter-blast, manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, the Court held that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
In view of these findings the Court allowed both petitions, quashing the FIR, the chargesheet and the order framing charges against all petitioners.
Case Title: Mela Ram & Ors. Vs State of J&K & Anr. Arti Devi Vs State of J&K & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)